Finishing the Task of Adventist Biblical and Systematic Theologies

29 Pages·2006·0.55 MB·English

by  Fernando Canale

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 16/1–2 (2005): 114–142.
Article copyright © 2005 by Fernando Canale.

From Vision to System: Finishing the Task
of Adventist Biblical and Systematic
Theologies—Part II

Fernando Canale
Andrews University Theological Seminary

In the first article of this three article series, we traced the more salient turns
in the development of the Adventist hermeneutical vision from its origins to the
present. This summary overview brought to light some important facts about the
way Adventists do theology. For early Adventists the Sanctuary doctrine be-
came the hermeneutical vision guiding the discovery of a complete system of
theology and truth. This system of theology, in turn, guided the practice of min-
istry and led to the growth and worldwide expansion of the Adventist church.

1. Review
During the second half of the twentieth century, Evangelical Adventism re-
jected the Sanctuary doctrine because it contradicted their theological under-
standing of justification by faith drawn from the Protestant system of theology.
Consequently, they abandoned the pioneers’ historicist interpretation of proph-
ecy, the Sanctuary doctrine, and the understanding of salvation as historical
process. Simply put, this sector in Adventism became convinced that the pio-
neers’ prophetic interpretation and eschatological understanding of theology was
wrong. We need to recognize this fact and move on.
Another casualty in this process of theological development was the re-
placement of the sola-tota Scriptura principle by the multiple sources of theol-
ogy matrix. Evangelical Adventism, then, does theology from the hermeneutical
light of justification by faith.1 Progressive Adventism uses the hermeneutical

1 This is the hermeneutical approach followed by Luther’s approach to biblical interpretation
and the construction of Christian doctrines. Jaroslav Pelikan explains, “Luther could sometimes
dwell upon the centrality and the authority of the gospel with an almost obsessive intensity, testing
liturgical practice, ethical precept, and even theological dogma by this criterion rather than by the
norm of conformity to the literal meaning of the biblical text” (The Christian Tradition: A History of
114
CANALE: FROM VISION TO SYSTEM
light provided by a combination of the gospel and science (historical-biological
evolution).2 These paradigmatic changes in the macro hermeneutical level of
Adventist theology spun dramatic changes in the practice of ministry, leading to
the charismatization of Adventism and the willingness of these sectors to join
spiritually in the ecumenical movement.
During the same period, Biblical Adventists reaffirmed the sola-tota Scrip-
tura3 principle and the Sanctuary doctrine4 but failed to use it as hermeneutical
guide to do theology and practice ministry. The results of this paradigm shift in
the macro hermeneutical level of Adventist theology has produced irreconcilable
theological pluralism in Adventist theology and practice. This pluralism affects
not the periphery or nonessentials of belief but their core and foundations.
Through them, it extends to the entire range of beliefs and practices of the
church. However, the existence and mission of the church requires unity in the
way we do and teach theology in seminaries, universities, and churches around
the world. Without unity of thought, there can be no community or explosive
mission.5 Because the cause that generated theological pluralism is intellectual
in nature, we need to overcome it intellectually.

the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols., [Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1971–1989], 4:181). This method-
ology makes the sola Scriptura principle subservient to the justification by faith principle (Luther’s
understanding of the gospel). Stephan Pfürtner tentatively concludes, “the Reformers, with their
theologically influential supporters and their communities, pursued a highly intensive ‘study’ of the
new paradigm, in its interpretative framework” (“The Paradigms of Thomas Aquinas and Martin
Luther: Did Luther's Message of Justification Mean a Paradigm Change?” in Paradigm Change in
Theology, ed. Hans Küng and David Tracy [New York: Crossroad, 1991], 130–160). See also Hans
Küng, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future, trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum,
1995), 539–577.
2 “Adventist theological thinking should be dynamically tripolar—that is, related to three bases
or ‘poles,’ three fundamental concerns that mutually support and limit one another in a creative
spiritual and theological interaction. In other words, our thinking about our religious experience,
practice, and beliefs should be a kind of three-cornered conversation” (Fritz Guy, Thinking Theo-
logically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith [Berrien Springs: Andrews UP,
1999], 225). Immediately, Guy identifies the three poles that mutually interact with each other in
shaping our theological understanding of what we believe. They are, “The Christian gospel, which is
our spiritual center; our cultural context, which is where we live, worship, witness, and serve; and
our Adventist heritage, which is the foundation of our theological identity” (ibid.).
3 For an affirmation and explanation of the tota Scriptura principle, see Gerhard Hasel, “The
Totality of Scripture versus Modernistic Limitations,” JATS 2/1 (1991): 30–52; and Richard M.
Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul
Dederen, Commentary Reference Series (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 60–61.
4 For affirmations of the Sanctuary doctrine and solutions of contended issues see, for instance,
Richard Davidson, “In Confirmation of the Sanctuary Message,” JATS 2/1 (1991): 93–114; William
H. Shea, “When did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin?” JATS 2/1 (1991): 115–138; C.
Mervin Maxwell, “In Confirmation of Prophetic Interpretation,” JATS 2/1 (1991): 139–151.
5 By “unity” of thought, I do not mean “identical” understanding of every text, doctrine, and
practice. Instead, I am speaking about agreement in the basic principles of theological methodology.
We should recommit Adventist theology to the sola-tota-prima Scriptura principle of early Adven-
tism. From this base, we should discuss and agree on the way we will interpret the macro hermeneu-
115
JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Are Evangelical and Progressive Adventists right in their views about
scholarly honesty, truth finding, and evangelistic outreach to secular postmodern
audiences? Are we compelled to follow the lead of Evangelical and Progressive
Adventists to be intellectually honest? Can we be “intellectually honest” while
still doing theology from the hermeneutical light beaming from the Sanctuary
doctrine and the historicist interpretation of prophecy as the pioneers did? If we
can, what should we do at the theological level to see the complete system of
theology and truth they saw? What will happen if the hermeneutical role of the
Sanctuary doctrine conditions theological methodology? Should we use a new
understanding of theological method6 rather than following a supposedly univer-
sally accepted theological method?7 Are there scholarly areas that need further
development in the theology of the Church? What are the repercussions of para-
digm changes in the theological methodology and system for the unity and mis-
sion of the church? Is it possible to reach contemporary secularized persons
within and without the church community with an intellectually compelling,
spiritually fulfilling, and experientially satisfying message?

2. Introduction
To answer these questions, we need to explore the role of the Sanctuary
doctrine as hermeneutical vision from which to discover a complete and harmo-
nious system of truth at the scholarly level of scientific research in postmodern
times. Yet, before considering this broad issue in the next article (third article),
we need to turn our attention in this article to the disciplinary landscape. This
will help us to understand where we stand and give us a broad overview about

tical principles of theology, notably, the principle of reality (being, God, human nature, and the
world), articulation, and knowledge. Agreement in the interpretation of these two apriori conditions
of theological method is necessary for the unity and coherence of any theological program. Once a
community reaches implicit or explicit agreement on these issues, theological research will produce
different but complementary and harmonious views. Difference will not be divisive, but will pro-
gressively add to the perfection of our understanding of divine truth. Ellen White also saw variety as
essential to perfection and expressed it by way of a brief metaphor. “There is variety in a tree, there
are scarcely two leaves just alike. Yet this variety adds to the perfection of the tree as a whole” (Se-
lected Messages, 3 vols. [Washington: Review and Herald, 1958, 1980], 21).
6 Because Fritz Guy thinks there is no Adventist theological method, he freely borrows from
classical and modern theological methodological principles. Adventism “does not have its own sepa-
rate way of thinking theologically” (ix).
7 Theological method correlates to the specific theological system of Christian theology it sup-
ports. Each specific theological system depends on the concrete decisions taken at the grounding
level of theological methodology. “Conceptions of method emerge only in the context of an interre-
lated web of beliefs. Method is not simply a self-sufficient programmatic enterprise that can be
readily abstracted from the rest of theology. Rather, decisions made about the method of theology
both inform the entire conceptualization of the theological model and are themselves informed by the
theological conclusions that emerge from that model” (Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond
Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context [Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2001], 12). Thus, there is no universal theological method, but various competing methodologies
producing competing theological systems.
116
CANALE: FROM VISION TO SYSTEM
the unfinished business of Adventist theology. In a fourth article, we will look at
the role that theology plays in the ministry and mission of the church.
Why was the use of the Sanctuary doctrine as hermeneutical vision from
which to understanding Scripture and its complete system of truth forgotten,
neglected, and replaced in contemporary Adventist theological scholarship?8 As
with all historical events, we must assume that contemporary forgetfulness, ne-
glect, and replacement springs from a variety of causes. Here, I want to explore
briefly the possible role that the disciplinary matrix of scholarly Adventist the-
ology has in this situation. Besides, to understand the role that the hermeneutical
vision has in scholarly theology, we need to consider the status of the discipli-
nary matrix in Adventist theology.
To gain an introductory awareness of the disciplinary matrix in Adventist
theology under the hermeneutical guidance of the Sanctuary doctrine, I will take
the following steps. We will start by considering (1) “the new playground” for
theological activity by highlighting some features of the scholarly theological
research ongoing in Adventist universities and seminaries. Then, we will see
how (2) the parting of theological ways shows in the controversy regarding the
historical-grammatical and historical critical methods of biblical exegesis. Next,
we will explore (3) the limits of exegetical methodology, and, (4) the nature,
center, and limits of biblical theology. Finally, we will turn our attention to sys-
tematic theology as a biblical theological discipline.
In the midst of theological pluralism, Evangelical, Progressive, Historical,
and Biblical Adventisms seem to share one common unsaid and probably
unthought assumption: We have all the truth we need. Thus, most Adventists do
not see the need for Bible study or theological research. Contemporary Advent-
ists do not see that further discovering and understanding biblical truth will fos-
ter unity and mission. What will unite the church and foster her mission is ap-
plying the truth we already have to our contemporary situation, they think. In
time, “applying” became “adapting.” Adapting is shaping us into the image of
Protestant Charismatic Christianity.
In this and the following article, I would like to suggest that this assumption
is wrong. Instead, we need to further discover and understand biblical truth. In
the Scriptures, early Adventist pioneers discovered the hermeneutical basis for a

8 In 1980, Fritz Guy explained with clarity that the experience of the pioneers with the Sanctu-
ary doctrines “was 136 years ago, in a historical situation that was very different from ours. In terms
of technological and cultural change, we are as far removed from 1844 as 1844 was from the time of
the New Testament. Ours is a time of hand-held electronic calculators, instant global communication
(audio plus video in color) and jet lag” (Fritz Guy, “Confidence in Salvation: The Meaning of the
Sanctuary,” Spectrum 11/2 (1980): 44). He continues explaining why, according to him, the pio-
neers’ understanding of the Sanctuary doctrine was lost for his generation. “We have not lived
through the Advent expectation of 1844 or its bitter disappointment; however much we respect the
Adventist pioneers and want to identify with their experience, it remains their experience, not ours.
So we must ask the question, What does the doctrine of the sanctuary mean for us today, in 1980?”
(ibid., emphasis provided).
117
JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Copernican revolution in theological methodology and the understanding of
Christian theology. They only started a revolution that following generations
have left unfinished through forgetfulness, replacement, and neglect. Discover-
ing the hermeneutical role the Sanctuary doctrine plays in theological methodol-
ogy and how its application opens to view the complete system of theology will
help Adventism overcome present theological divisions. Completing the theo-
logical task the pioneers left unfinished will generate unity in the worldwide
church and motivate it to engage in the final mission.

3. The New “Playground”
When Adventist theology moved to the university setting, it entered a new
“playground” with new rules to play the theological “game.” This playground
includes various independent theological disciplines, each with their own meth-
odologies, presuppositions, and goals. They form the “disciplinary matrix” of
scholarly Christian theology. Theological disciplines as we know them today
originated during the Enlightenment in the middle of the eighteenth century
when biblical theology was born as independent discipline.9 Yet, we can trace
the first attempt to do theology from the sola Scriptura principle back to the
Protestant Reformation.10 Before the Reformation, theologians interpreted Scrip-
ture and constructed Christian teachings following what we today know as sys-
tematic theology.11 Among the disciplines involved in the task of doing theology

9 In the historical process that gave rise to biblical theology as an independent discipline,
Gerhard Ebeling sees a decisive turning point taking place with the publication of Gedanken von der
Beschaffenheit und dem Vorzug der biblisch-dogmatischen Theologie vor der alten und neuen scho-
lastischen [Reflexions on the Nature of Biblical Dogmatic Theology and on Its Superiority to Scho-
lasticism Old and New] (1758), by Anton Friedrich Büsching [Word and Faith, trans. James W.
Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963], 87). By this step, biblical theology has moved from being a
discipline subsidiary of dogmatics to becoming “a rival of the prevailing dogmatics [scholastic the-
ology]” (ibid.). Biblical theology “set itself up as a completely independent study, namely, as a criti-
cal historical discipline alongside dogmatics” in 1787 with a programmatic lecture by Johann Philipp
Gabler (ibid., 88; Anthony C. Thiselton, “Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics,” in The Modern
Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century, ed. David F. Ford
[Cambridge: Blackwell, 1997], 520). Gerhard Hasel gives a slightly earlier date for the independence
of biblical theology from dogmatics. “As early as 1745 ‘Biblical theology’ is clearly separated from
dogmatic (systematic) theology and the former is conceived of as being the foundation of the latter”
(Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, rev. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975],
18).
10 Ebeling, Word and Faith, 82. “In fact [explains Ebeling], one is bound to say that Reforma-
tion theology is the first attempt in the entire history of theology to take seriously the demand for a
theology based on holy scripture alone” (ibid.). For a scholarly overview of the post-Reformation
Reformed theology, see Richard A. Muller, Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987),
251–276.
11 Thus, in the prolegomena to his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas did not speak about
how various theological disciplines may work together, but about how theology should relate to
philosophy (trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 3 vols. [New York: Benzinger Broth-
ers, 1947], I. 1, 1 and 4).
118
CANALE: FROM VISION TO SYSTEM
we find biblical theology, systematics, practice of ministry, missiology, ethics,
history of theology, history of the church, philosophy, and a number of related
sciences involved in the practice of ministry and missiology.12
As we saw briefly in the first article, Adventist theology began as lay theol-
ogy.13 Initial intellectual endeavors engaged the disciplines of history14 and
chronology.15 Early in its intellectual history, Adventist scholarship emphasized
“biblical theology rather than the systematic theology of the general Protestant
seminaries.”16 Systematic theology was suspect because of its disciplinary ties to
non-biblical philosophical principles. Back then, Adventists thought this disci-
plinary emphasis would help to keep their beliefs and experience closely tied to
Scripture. We can understand the emphasis placed on biblical theology easily if
we keep in mind the sola-tota Scriptura principle on which Adventist theology
stands.17 The disciplinary emphasis in biblical theology characterizes Adventist
theological education around the world to the present time. Studies in systematic
theology were mere summaries of biblical teaching.
Emphasizing Old and New Testament studies came naturally to Adventists.
Involvement in biblical scholarship seems the continuity and crowning of their
commitment to the sola-tota Scriptura principle. Newfound scholarship will
help check Adventist teachings generated by the “lay” reflection of Ellen White
and the pioneers. The new way to study Scripture was exegesis, “the branch of
theology which investigates and expresses the true sense of Sacred Scripture.”18

12 Ekkehardt Müller describes briefly the theological encyclopedia in Adventist Education,
“Theological Thinking in the Adventist Church,” DavarLogos 1/2 (2002): 128–129.
13 This does not mean they did not have a method or apply careful reasoning to the study of
Scripture. William Miller’s method was influential in early lay Adventist theology. Shortly put, he
distrusted traditional interpretations, adopted the sola Scriptura principle, followed a literal interpre-
tation unless the context requires otherwise, drew its categories of interpretation from Scripture, and
followed an historical interpretation of Prophecy. For a brief comment on his Bible study method,
see Richard W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant: Denominational History Textbook for Sev-
enth-day Adventist College Classes (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1979), 32.
14 In this area, the work of Le Roy Edwin Froom is notable. See his The Conditionalist Faith of
our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages over the Nature and Destiny of Man (Washington: Review and
Herald, 1965–66); and, Movement of Destiny (Washington: Review and Herald, 1971).
15 In this area, see, for instance, Sylvester Bliss, Analysis of Sacred Chronology: With the Ele-
ments of Chronology and the Numbers of the Hebrew Text Vindicated (Boston: J. V. Himes, 1851);
and Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1983).
16 Richard W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant, 489.
17 See Fundamental Belief 1, in General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day
Adventists Believe . . . : A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines (Hagerstown: Review and
Herald, 1988), 4.
18 J. J. Maas, “Biblical Exegesis,” in New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. K. Knight (On-
line edition: http://www.newadvent.org/, 2003). “The term exegesis—explains Moises Silva—is a
fancy way of referring to interpretation. It implies that the explanation of the text has involved care-
ful, detailed analysis. The description gramatico-historical indicates, of course, that this analysis
must pay attention both to the language in which the original text was written and to the specific
119
JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Scholarly exegesis is “scientific” because it results from the application of
method.19 Adventists found scholarship using two different exegetical method-
ologies: the grammatical-historical method originating in Luther and the Refor-
mation and the historical critical method originating in the Enlightenment.20
Biblical Adventists follow the grammatical-historical method, while Progressive
Adventists follow a “modified” version of the historical critical method.21
During the last fifty years, biblical studies have developed extensively
throughout Biblical Adventism. Exegetes, using mainly the grammatical-
historical method of the Reformation, have examined carefully the biblical texts
from which the pioneers derived the Adventist pillars and sanctuary vision.
Thanks to ongoing research, we know these doctrines stand on solid biblical
ground and have richer and deeper meanings than previous generations under-
stood.22

cultural context that gave rise to the text” (Walter C. Kaiser, and Moises Silva, An Introduction to
Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 21).
19 Thus, Richard Davidson defines exegesis as the application of what he calls the “historical-
biblical hermeneutical method.” Exegesis, then, is “the attempt to understand the meaning of the
biblical data using methodological considerations arising from Scripture alone” (“Biblical Interpreta-
tion,” 94).
20 Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today (Washington: Biblical Research Institute,
1985), 3–6.
21 Jerry Gladson, “Taming Historical Criticism: Adventist Biblical Scholarship in the Land of
the Giants,” Spectrum (April 1988): 19–34. As a result of this affirmation, “we have among Advent-
ists today more or less two hermeneutics, one the historical Seventh-day Adventist approach with
minor modifications, the other a hermeneutic based on substantially differing foundations as we have
described above. This latter involves modalities prominent in historical criticism (or the historical-
critical method) but which claims to have purged its most obvious humanistic presuppositions, such
as denial of the supernatural” (“Another Look at Adventist Hermeneutics,” JATS 2/1 [1991]: 72).
Gladson argues that we should accept the historical developmental dynamics of historical criticism
and reject its naturalistic assumptions (ibid., 22). This proposal, however, is a straw man. Historical
criticism in biblical theology has always accepted divine transcendence. Transcendence, however,
belongs to the timeless spiritual realm, not to the historical realm where historical criticism rewrites
biblical history, stripping it of divine actions in historical sequences in time. For a careful study of
the development of the historical critical method, its dependency on philosophical categories, and
the way it accommodates divine transcendence while rewriting history, see, Raúl Kerbs, “El método
histórico-crítico en teología: En búsca de su estructura básica y de las interpretaciones filosóficas
subyacentes (Parte 1),” DavarLogos 1/2 (2002): 105–123; and, “El método histórico-crítico en
teología: En busca de su estructura básica y de las interpretaciones filosóficas subyacentes (Parte
II),” DavarLogos 2/1 (2003): 11–27. George Reid correctly remarks, “The crux of the question is
whether a blending of the historic Adventist approach with historical criticism is possible. Some
argue that much in historical criticism is helpful in exegesis and theology. Ultimately a great deal
rests on whether historical criticism is actually a system or whether it is simple a pool of isolated
techniques that can be drawn upon pragmatically according to individual usefulness” (ibid., 73).
Unfortunately, method cannot be an isolated pool of techniques. Even affirming transcendence,
Gladson’s proposal still stands on the philosophical foundations of historical criticism.
22See, for instance, the scholarly dialogue on the interpretation of the veil in the heavenly sanc-
tuary according to the book of Hebrews. Davidson presents the view of Biblical Adventism in re-
sponse the Young’s arguments from the Evangelical Adventist perspective. Roy E. Gane, “Re-
120
CANALE: FROM VISION TO SYSTEM

4. Watershed
History is essential not only to the Adventist understanding of prophecy but
also to its understanding of Christian teachings. In prophetic interpretation, Bib-
lical and Historical Adventisms still work within a historicist interpretive tradi-
tion.23 Theologically, Adventism also thinks historically from within the Great
Controversy dynamics. Both trends assume the real historical presence and di-
rect activities of God within the spatiotemporal flux of human history. As we
will see in the next article, in both fields, Adventist theology stands alone. No
other tradition or school of Christian theology shares the Adventist view on pro-
phetic interpretation and the Great Controversy matrix for systematic theology.
Why is this so? Are there methodological reasons behind this unique approach
to Christian theology?
The Historical-grammatical Method. Exegetically, Biblical Adventism
operates with the historical-grammatical method. This method assumes Scrip-
ture speaks about real historical events in space and time. The procedures in-
volved in the historical-grammatical method help to determine the meaning of
biblical texts better than to establish the historical reality of their referents.
Mainly, exegetes assume Scripture describes historical events as they really took
place in history. Thus, the historical-grammatical method was helpful in estab-
lishing the meaning of biblical events but did not help much in the theological
arena. A theological method supplemented the exegetical one in determining in
what sense the actions of a timeless, non-historical spiritual God are real. In an
implicit sense, then, the historical-grammatical method was incomplete and
open to correction from theological and philosophical reflections. Because of the
limits of exegesis (see below, section 5), the historical-grammatical method is
not enough to ground the historicist interpretation of prophecy and the Great
Controversy approach to systematic theology. This methodological limitation
may be one of the factors contributing to the rise of Evangelical Adventism.
The Historical Critical Method. With the advent of modernity and histori-
cal consciousness, exegetes adopted the historical critical method of biblical

opening Katapetasma (‘Veil’) in Hebrews 6:19,” AUSS 38/1 (2000): 5–8. Norman H. Young,
“'Where Jesus has Gone as Forerunner on our Behalf' (Hebrews 6:20),” AUSS 39/2 (2001): 165–173.
Richard Davidson, “Christ's Entry ‘Within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19–20: The Old Testament Back-
ground,” AUSS 39/2 (2001): 175–190. Norman H. Young, “The Day of Dedication or the Day of
Atonement?: The Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20,” AUSS 40/1 (2002): 61–68.
Richard Davidson, “Inauguration or Day of Atonement? A Response to Norman Young's Old Tes-
tament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,” AUSS 40/1 (2002): 69–88.
23 Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism?: Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical
Apocalyptic—Part One],” JATS 14/2 (2003): 15–43; see also, Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and
Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” JATS 14/2 (2003):
1–14.
121
JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
interpretation.24 Modernity generated paradigmatic changes in epistemology
that, in turn, produced a new way to study historical events. On the surface, the
modern emphasis on history seems to affirm the historicists’ approach to pro-
phetic interpretation, Bible interpretation, and systematic theology operating in
Adventism.
Is historical critical methodology compatible with biblical thinking and Ad-
ventist theology? Should Adventists use the historical critical method or avoid
its conclusions and criticize its operations epistemologically?25 Briefly put, be-
cause the application of the historical critical method leads to a reinterpretation
of what actually took place in history, Adventist theology cannot use it without
forfeiting the sola-tota Scriptura principle and the complete system of theology
and truth the Sanctuary hermeneutical vision opens to view.26 Let us remember
that the historical critical method reinterprets not only the “History of Israel”27
but also God’s salvific acts in the Old and New Testaments. As a result, two
different accounts of the same history stand side by side: the “scientific” account
of what “really took place” stemming from the application of the historical criti-
cal method to biblical history, and the biblical account of what “really took
place” from the perspective of the common everyday experience of history. Be-
cause Bible history presents God acting within the flow of history as an agent
among others, science cannot accept it as real, but only as a mythological prod-
uct of religious imagination.28 In fact, empirical science unleashes the modern

24 I have found Steven MacKenzie and Stephen Haynes, ed., To Each Its Own Meaning: An In-
troduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application (Louisville: John Knox, 1999) to be a very
useful and comprehensive introduction to the complex matrix of historical critical exegetical meth-
odologies.
25 For a negative answer, see Edward Zinke, Historical Criticism (http:// biblicalresearch. gc.
adventist.org/documents/historicalcriticism.htm: Biblical Research Institute, 1981); for a positive
answer, see Gladson.
26 For a critical treatment of the historical critical method, see, for instance, Gerhard Maier,
The End of the Historical Critical Method, trans. Edwin W. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden (St
Louis: Concordia, 1977); and Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or
Ideology, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990).
27 Ibid., 22–25.
28 Answering a charge that his position involves relativism, Troeltsch explains that he is not
speaking of a process “immanent in human history” (ibid., 67). In the evolutionary process of his-
tory, argues Troeltsch, each moment has “a direct relationship to God which belongs only to it. They
are temporally discrete, and yet also approximations to the Absolute Life” (ibid.). From this meta-
physical objective non-historical ground, “religious thought unfolds in its own unique manner. In so
far as it seizes upon every means of stimulation and expression, religious thought most closely re-
sembles the artistic imagination, yet it remains distinct from it by the experience of a compelling
superhuman reality revealing itself everywhere. Every expression is mythical, symbolic, poetic; but
in the expression something is grasped that bears within itself in a specifically religious manner its
own inner necessity and compelling power” (ibid. 57). In this way, religious language originates. In
this way, Scripture originated. Clearly, Troeltsch’s historical criticism for biblical investigation and
and religionsgeshichtliche Methode (history of religions methodology) is not “naturalistic.” That is
to say, it accounts for the “transcendence” presuppositions Gladson requires as necessary conditions
122
CANALE: FROM VISION TO SYSTEM
reinterpretation of Christianity that reaches the ground, the method, and the sys-
tem of Christian theology. From the scientific perspective, the Scriptures are
myths generated by human imagination and labeled Heilsgeschichte (History of
Salvation).29 One cannot miss the fact that historical criticism follows from a
strict understanding of reality that prevents us from accepting the biblical ac-
count of God’s acts in history as “real.” Yet, is the scientific view of reality ab-
solute? Is there another understanding of reality that may ground the historical
facticity of biblical Heilsgehichte? We will return to this question in our next
article.
Instead of exploring this possibility in the areas of ontology and epistemol-
ogy, Progressive Adventists argue in favor of a “modified” version of the his-
torical critical method. Jerry Gladson suggests, “The Adventist biblical scholar
should make use of a modified version of historical criticism, so long as it does
not remove the transcendent level or challenge the theological authority and
inspiration of Scripture.” His plea, however, falls short on two counts. First,
Troeltsch’s rendering of historical critical methodology does not build on natu-
ralistic presuppositions but assumes divine transcendence.30 Second, there are
varied ways to interpret the inspiration of the Bible. For instance, Paul J.
Achtemeier suggests that the Holy Spirit’s inspiration acted not on individual
authors but on the community following the evolutionary process described by
historical critical scholars.31 According to his view, the “inspiration” of Scrip-
ture means the leading of the Holy Spirit in the community as it formed the con-
tents of Scripture and formulated it in writing.32 Thus, the historical critical
method can work, assuming the transcendence of God and the inspiration of
Scripture, without requiring any substantial modification.

for an Adventist appropriation of the historical critical method. Obviously, we need more than Glad-
son’s suggestion that we can use the historical critical method only by assuming “transcendence”
instead of Troeltsch’s “naturalism” (27).
29 Describing the way in which traditional dogmatics deals with history, Ernst Troeltsch ex-
plains, “the dogmatic method also claims to be based upon ‘history.’ But this is not the ordinary,
secular history reconstructed by critical historiography. It is rather a history of salvation
(Heilsgeschichte), a nexus of saving facts which, as such, are knowable and provable only for the
believer. These facts have precisely the opposite characteristics of the facts that secular, critical
historians can regard, on the basis of their criteria, as having actually taken place” (Religion in His-
tory trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 21).
30 Troeltsch builds on Kant’s transcendentalism and Schleiermacher’s encounter account of
revelation. He speaks of an “irrational” apriori in human reason. There is “a concentration of the
religious consciousness upon itself by virtue of the objective-religious element included in subjectiv-
ity” (Religion in History, 59). Later on, he identifies “irrational” apriori in human reason with God.
“The present [affirms Troeltsch] is completely filled by the immediate nearness of God” (ibid., 66).
31 The evolutionary thinking of Hegel plays a structural role in the interpretation of Scripture
gestation, according to the historical critical method matrix (Troeltsch, Religion in History, 59).
32 Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrick-
son, 1999), 118–121.
123